CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 27 juin 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   483 27.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN JULY   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following three hearings in July 2008 :   Tuesday 1 July: 9 a.m.   Chamber hearing on the merits and the admissibility   Mücke v. Germany (application no. 19359/04)   The applicant, Reinhard Mücke, is a German national who was born in 1957 and is currently detained in Schwalmstadt (Germany).   The case concerns the applicant’s continued placement in preventive detention for more than ten years, the maximum period authorised at the time of his placement, on the basis of an amendment to the Criminal Code which entered into force when he had already been held in preventive detention for more than six years.   In November 1986 the Marburg Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. It further ordered his placement in preventive detention. This measure was considered necessary in view of the fact that the applicant was strongly inclined to commit offences which seriously damaged his victims’ physical integrity – he had already been convicted and imprisoned on numerous occasions, specifically for attempted murder, joint theft, dangerous assault and blackmail. In the court’s opinion, it was to be expected that he would repeat spontaneous acts of violence, and he was dangerous for the public. The applicant finished serving his prison sentence in August 1991 and has been in preventive detention since that date.     The courts refused to suspend on probation the applicant’s placement in preventive detention. In April 2001 the Marburg Regional Court again refused to allow suspension. In addition, it ordered that the applicant be kept in preventive detention beyond 8 September 2001, date of expiry of the maximum ten-year period authorised for such detention by the Criminal Code as applicable when the applicant committed the offences, was convicted and placed in preventive detention. The court applied the Criminal Code as amended by a law which entered into force on 31 January 1998. It stated that this new text was applicable also to prisoners whose placement in preventive detention had been ordered prior to the law’s entry into force. The court added that, on account of the gravity of the applicant’s criminal record and the likelihood of future offences, his continued placement in preventive detention was not disproportionate.     In October 2001 Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal confirmed that the applicant’s dangerousness necessitated his continued placement, and stated that this continued placement was not contrary to the prohibition of retrospective provisions.     The applicant lodged an unsuccessful constitutional complaint. In a judgment of 5 February 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court held, in particular, that the abolition of the maximum period of detention, and the application of this measure to criminals who had been placed in preventive detention prior to the entry into force of the new provision and had not yet finished serving their sentences, were compatible with the Basic Law. It considered that the retrospective application of the amended text of the Criminal Code was not disproportionate.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains about his preventive detention, alleging that, on completion of the ten-year period, he was no longer lawfully detained after conviction by a competent court for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a). Under Article 7 (no punishment without law), he claimed that he was victim of an infringement of the right to not be imposed with a heavier penalty than the one applicable at the time of his offence.   Wednesday 2 July: 9 a.m.   Grand Chamber [1]   Kozacıoğlu v.Turkey (no. 2334/03) The applicant, İbrahim Kozacıoğlu, a Turkish national, died in 2005. His heirs decided to continue with the application before the Court.   In April 2000 a building belonging to the applicant was expropriated by the Ministry of Culture on the ground that it had been classified as a “cultural asset”. The applicant was paid approximately 65,326   euros (EUR) on the transfer of the property.   In October 2000 the applicant lodged an application for increased compensation, requesting that a new panel of experts re-assess the property and take into account its historical value. He argued in particular that the building in question featured on the Council of Europe’s inventory of cultural and natural heritage, and claimed approximately EUR   1,728,750 in additional compensation. Two different panels of experts found in 2001 that, in view of the nature of the property, its value should be increased by   100%. However, in May 2002, the domestic courts awarded the applicant a final sum of approximately EUR   45,980 in additional compensation.   Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant complains in particular of an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   In a Chamber judgment of 31   July 2007, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court noted that the historical value of the expropriated building had not been taken into consideration when calculating compensation, either when determining the expropriation compensation or during the proceedings to increase that award. It considered that this total failure to take that element into account had deprived the applicant of the value of the expropriated property. It also held that its judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 75,000   for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses.   On 31   October 2007, the Turkish Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. That request was accepted on 31   March 2008.   Wednesday 9 July: 9 a.m.   Grand Chamber 1   Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) v. Switzerland (no. 32772/02)   The applicant, Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT), is a Swiss-registered animal-protection association which campaigns against experiments on animals and battery farming.   In response to various advertisements produced by the meat industry, it made a television commercial which showed a noisy hall with pigs in small pens and compared the conditions to those in concentration camps.   Permission to broadcast the commercial was refused on 24   January 1994 by the Commercial Television Company ( AG für das Werbefernsehen – now Publisuisse S.A.) and at final instance by the Federal Court, which dismissed an administrative-law appeal by the applicant association on 20   August 1997.   The applicant association lodged an initial application (no.   24699/94) with the European Court of Human Rights, which, in its Chamber judgment of 28   June 2001, held that the Swiss authorities’ refusal to broadcast the commercial in question was in violation of Article   10 (freedom of expression).   On 1   December 2001, on the basis of the Court’s judgment, the applicant association applied to the Federal Court for revision of the final domestic judgment prohibiting the commercial from being broadcast. On 29   April 2002 the Federal Court refused that request.   The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe – which is responsible for supervising execution of the Court’s judgments – was not informed that the Federal Court had refused the request for revision and accordingly ended its examination of the applicant association’s initial application (no.   24699/94) by adopting a resolution in July 2003. However, the resolution noted the possibility of lodging a request for revision with the Federal Court.   In July 2002 the applicant association lodged the present application with the Court. It alleged that the continued prohibition on broadcasting the television commercial in question following the Strasbourg Court’s judgment of 28 June 2001 amounted to an interference with its freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.   In its Chamber judgment of 4   October 2007 the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article   10 (freedom of expression).   On 31   March 2008 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Swiss Government’s request.     ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ) [2] .   Press contacts Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.   [2] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.